jennifer wolch & marcus owens animals in contemporary … 16/pdfs/wolch... · 2017. 2. 13. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
H U M a N I M A L I A 8:2
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens
Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
What are animals doing in design? To answer this question, we analyzed a small
sample of contemporary animal design projects, taken both from the oeuvres of
established practitioners as well as one-off projects and competition entries circulating
on design culture media platforms. In doing so, this paper also considers what it means
to pose such a question, located at the intersection of human-animal studies (HAS) with
its attention to relations between humans and animals, and design studies, whose focus
is on technology, material and visual culture. While Matthew Fuller has examined art
for animals, and DiSalvo and Lukens attempt to make sense of a broader “non-
anthropocentric design,” this research more specifically follows Sloterdijk’s “rules for
the human zoo,” proposing the intersection between these domains as increasingly
politically pertinent for humans, given market-driven advances in biotechnology and
the relationship of design to the libidinal late-capitalist economies of attention,
creativity, and innovation. This research suggests that the aesthetic practice of design
provides an ideal forum for bringing the question of animality and desire into studies of
technics and technology. Likewise, technical aspects of design provide a means to
understand animals beyond innate morphological essences assigned by humans, from
an ethological perspective composed of expressions of movements, sensations, and
environmental flows (Parikka xxv).
In the cases of both animal and design studies, there is already evidence of trajectories
towards convergence. Given its roots in the animal rights and liberation movement, and
predicated on growing scientific evidence of nonhuman subjectivity, HAS has
particular relevance in the contemporary moment, in which resilience politics and the
perception of ecological crisis underpin a de-centering of the human. More recently,
some propose to reconfigure notions of agency and subjectivity to accommodate beings
beyond the charismatic animals that have dominated 20th century animal studies and
its humanist rights-based approach, including fungi (Tsing), mosses (Gabrys), and even
the “inhuman” geologic matter of the cosmos (Barad). These approaches may
incorporate aesthetic and semiotic theory to expound upon the potential political
agency of materials. Without necessarily committing to Latour’s project of assembling a
“parliament of things,” these literatures are worth noting in the way that they bring
materials into animal studies, providing a window to connect with design studies as a
material practice. While animal advocates may clash with a bio-centric environmentalist
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
2
outlook on issues such as the extermination of certain species for the sake of
biodiversity metrics, the general, if at times ambiguous, goal of raising awareness of a
nonhuman-other can often constitute the ends for sustainability-minded animal
designers.
To begin to place animals in design, we must first understand design’s historical
relationship to technology, and to material and visual culture. Across theories of design
in domains from anthropology (Ingold), to philosophy (Flusser), to histories of
technology (Marx) and art (Coles 8), design is understood as a way of making and
doing that emerges from the broader classical Greek techné associated with the practical,
manual labor of slaves and peasants. For these scholars, design becomes distinct from
technology and the broader techné with the division of labor associated with Taylorist
industrial production. Ingold describes how the emergence of design and other
“spontaneous work of the human imagination” such as artistic or scientific genius, act
as an antipode to technical practices resulting from the rise of machinic labor and the
decline of the artisan (295). For scholars of material culture and technology, design
refers to the curatorial or aesthetic arrangement of materials or technologies (Bijker et
al.). In this way, the “work” of the designer is this added curatorial or aesthetic labor
that extends beyond the immediate material functionality of the technology itself.
However, design is also distinct from the modern concept of art, underscored by
Renaissance concept of disegno and Rancière’s “aesthetic regime,” or art. Formulated at
the close of what Rancière terms the “representative regime,” disegno, or the act of
drawing, serves to negotiate the interface between art and technology, or creative vision
and manual labor in the modern era (Ross 4). In this way, design must, or at least
should, theoretically “work.” This technical sense of producing predetermined
outcomes is in contrast to the autonomy afforded to art under the aesthetic regime that
defines modernity. Design is expected to produce novel, iconoclastic, and/or
destabilizing scenarios or products, yet at the same time requires at least some level of
consensus and functionality.
One way of discussing animal design projects in our survey is in terms of this
relationship to material functionality and aesthetics. Largely resulting from academic
studios, ideas competitions, and art practices, many projects featured on blogs such as
BLDGBLG, its Future Perfect affiliates, and Expanded Environment, are more critical or
speculative in nature. While they are sometimes elaborations on established typologies,
such as a “future zoo,” they also feature forms other than traditional animal typologies,
thereby imagining new material components for novel interspecies relations. These
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
3
projects blur the boundaries between art and design in different ways. “Critical design”
(Malpass) or “design art” (Coles) practices create objects whose “function” is often
critique or provocation, something other than what is literally implied by design.
Speculative designs, emerging from academic studios, and think tanks draw on a long
tradition in architecture of imagining visionary, alternative realities or critiquing
existing ones is a hallmark of modern design. Finally, the phenomenon of the starchitect
is also clearly rooted in the modernist cult of genius associated with the aesthetic
regime of art rather than an emergent or evolutionary perspective. Many of the built
projects featured on design sites — especially zoos and aquaria — relate more to a
conception of architectural practice as brand-building in the contemporary moment.
Many of the built animal architecture projects on Archinect, Archdaily, Designboom, and
Dezeen tend to be aestheticized neo-modernist iterations of these standardized
typologies dictated by industry standard guidelines, rather than “designing for
animals” per se.
Whatever the form, this characteristic of design for controlled innovation neatly
corresponds to late-capitalist modes of accumulation. If the deep-time, atmospheric-
science, and post-equilibrium paradigms of ecology present a planetary reconfiguration
of ideas about the environment, media theorists argue for a dissolution of the division
between bios and techne through concepts such as bio-media (Thacker) or wetware
(Winthrop-Young) systems that triangulate with software code and hardware devices.
Considering the power dynamics of “designerly ways of intervening into people’s
lives” (Markussen), or the “engineering of affect” (Julier; Thrift) implicit in design, the
notion of “atmospheric power” emerges to describe how the organism’s sensorium
becomes the subject of design in the constant production of novelty, innovation, and
brand management required to capture consumer attention in the contemporary
attention economy (Borch et al.). If genetic material, living cells, and neurons are the
frontiers of a new wave of “techno-primitive accumulation” (Preciado), examining the
role of animals in design allows us to understand the dynamics of animality in
contemporary designs for humans. For example, how might thinking about animals
and animality help scholars of technology and design think about our relation to
machinic intelligence, such as the mechanical turk, artificial intelligence, or fashion and
makeup design to avoid facial recognition software?
A Study of Animals in Design: Methods and Materials. To begin to get an overview of
contemporary design for animals, we conducted a targeted search of design-culture
media for projects referencing animals. This search was largely web-based, as
architecture projects, both built and speculative, are not published in ways comparable
to books, peer reviewed journal articles, or even popular publications. This can be due
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
4
to professional non-disclosure agreements with clients, as well as the vast array of
competitions, exhibitions, academic studios, and other speculative work that circulates
ephemerally in, and in many ways defines, architecture and design culture today. Our
survey therefore focused on the so-called “blogosphere” of prominent architecture web-
blogs, including Archinect, Archdaily, Designboom, Dezeen, BLDGBLG and its Future
Perfect affiliates. Inhabitat, a more consumer-oriented eco-lifestyle design blog, also
featured some animal architecture projects. Finally, the blog Expanded Environment
(formerly Animal Architecture) is wholly devoted to animals in architecture and design
culture, and has organized several “Animal Architecture Awards.” The following
discussion of the species distribution uncovered in our search therefore corresponds to
a wider body of scholarship visual and media studies addressing the algorithm habitats
of charismatic digital animals (or charismatic starchitect brands)* (Lorimer; Rothfels;
Lippit).
Species Representation. All in all, our search included a suite of weblogs and
traditional publications, including books, journals, and exhibition catalogs dating from
the year 2000 to 2014. In Linnean terms, of the 86 projects considered, two deal with
mollusks, 12 with arthropods, and 72 with vertebrates (we found no projects that
explicitly dealt with annelids, sponges, or jellyfish). Of the 12 arthropod projects, seven
are bee projects, concerned with an animal whose relation to technology is also subject
to numerous scholarly investigations (Kosek; Parikka). Four of these bee projects were
variations on a bee hive, a type of project addressed here as a decorative variant of
animal housing. Other designs included an ecological project that aims to assist bees in
pollination, and two were projects that exploit the tendency of bees to produce
honeycomb structures. The two mollusk projects found in our query were Natalie
Jeremijenko and Chris Woebken’s “mussel choir” and SCAPE Landscape Architect’s
“Oystertecture” proposal for New York Harbor.
By far the largest group is designs for vertebrates, despite being the phylum with the
least number of individuals. Of the 72 vertebrate projects, 12 deal with bats and/or
birds, and all but two of these are housing for either wild animals or domestic chickens.
As with the designer beehives, while these projects in some sense prefigure
contemporary ecological and urban wildlife designs, they often appear to be less
“design for animals” that engage with animal sensory capacities than decorative
iterations of existing typologies. Similarly, many of these designs for vertebrates also
fell into established typologies, such as the veterinary facility or the zoo, each with its
own set of industry-standard best practices, discussed later.
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
5
Of the vertebrate projects, designs for companion animals such as dogs and cats were
very common. There were 12 projects for dogs or cats, seven companion-animal
veterinary care facilities, three companion-animal housing schemes, and two dog
parks. Not included in this companion-animal count was one project featuring
experimental fish bowls, which joined a total of six underwater, marine, or aquarium
projects. A subset of these care facilities for companion animals is a proliferation of
designs for companion species that go beyond the threshold of standard veterinary care
and into the realm of luxury, and signaling human social status such as in Meier Moh
Architekten’s “Canis Resort.”
Figure 1. “Canis Resort” (von Meier Architekten)
Dogs have long been the focus of studies of human-animal relations, given their
evolutionary attunement to human affect, emotion, and ways of life. This has ranged
from archaeological and zoological (Serpell) to more ethnographic (Haraway; Thomas)
analyses of human-dog relationships, while geographer Heidi Nast has criticized the
contemporary material culture of these relationships as symptoms of “neoliberal
alienation.” A history of this genre of design might include Ohlone Park in Berkeley,
California, which claims to be the home of the United States’s first dog park, established
in 1979. Other projects uncovered in our Internet search included the dog playground
“City Dog Adventure” in the Netherlands by Maarje Dros, and East River Waterfront
dog park by Ken Smith.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
6
Figure 2. “City Dog Adventure” (Maartje Dros)
Additionally, there were numerous takes on the dog-house typology, including the
starchitect exhibition “Architecture for Dogs,” and Cubix’s “Dog House.”
Figure 3. “Dog House” (Cubix)
Thought in terms of design, these projects may have more in common with the
decorative beehives and bird and bat houses. There were many designerly bird and bat
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
7
houses, ranging from high-end fabricated objects to the wildly speculative, such as
Zhong Huang’s “Birdscraper.”
Figure 4. “Birdscraper” (Zhuong Huang)
A variant on these companion-animal and animal-care projects is the wildlife
rehabilitation facility, a typology associated with practices and technologies of
restoration ecology or its more extreme variant, “rewilding.” The ethics of wildlife
reintroduction and behavior modification are the subject of philosophical debate by
environmental ethicists such as Clare Palmer. Practical methods for wildlife
reintroduction as part of restoration ecology are still emergent, subject to the formation
of norms and best practices. They therefore provide more space for design intervention
(Harrington et al.). For the most part, projects found here were closer to refuges or
veterinarian facilities. While many of these projects were nonetheless skillfully executed
designs, intersections between the emerging fields of wildlife reintroduction and
landscape restoration may be ripe for further innovation through the integration of
technologies of rehabilitation, incubation, and behavior conditioning with the broader
landscape-scale restoration and corridor plans discussed previously.
By framing these projects in Linnean terms we are able to see which types of animals
receive the most attention from human designers. As might perhaps be expected, it is
the vertebrates, not the far more numerous arthropods. Interestingly, those animals
often said to be our evolutionary closest relatives, great apes, received no attention,
while companion animals such as cats and dogs receive a substantial amount. Similarly,
livestock animals that produce milk or are consumed directly by humans also receive
almost no attention.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
8
Best Practices and Speculative Provocation. Another way to parse these findings is to
differentiate between built and unbuilt projects, or provocations and critiques made
using nonhuman animals and realized projects of more conventional animal-building
typologies. A large share of the projects featured on architecture blogs were iterations of
established animal typologies: zoos, aquaria, veterinarian facilities, refuges, and wildlife
rehabilitation centers. As with many of the designer birdhouses and beehives, in these
built projects design does not engage with the animal her/himself, but rather functions
as a means of human distinction. For example, PR materials for a luxurious veterinary
facility or petting zoo usually obscure standard cages, operating equipment, and other
nonhuman animal interfaces. In many cases, professional guidelines and affiliations
exist. For example, the National Institute of Building Sciences has a Whole Building
Design Guide for Vivaria; the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Facilities
has guidelines for the design of animal research facilities; the World Association of Zoos
and Aquariums maintains an index of animal exhibit design and construction projects;
and the North American Veterinary Community features sessions on design in recent
conferences. These professional protocols and best practices form the basis for
conventional, “everyday” animal architectures, and often form a distinct sector of the
design services industry. For example, according to the Whole Building Design Guide,
vivaria, like non-animal research facilities, must contain high performance Heating
Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC), promote cleanliness, and facilitate
biosecurity protocols. Additionally, vivaria must accommodate the appropriate “cage
sizing and cage systems” according to the National Research Council’s Guide for the
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, which in turn dictate room size, environment, and
circulation patterns. Because of the controversial nature of animal research, extra
security and confidentiality are also pertinent to design. In our search to find
documentation of vivaria, we found they were conspicuously absent from the plans of
prominent life-sciences university research facilities featured in architects’ portfolios.
However, industry sources such as Laboratory Design News feature practical design
products for use in animal research, such as Coulbourn Instruments’ “Small Animal
Treadmill,” “suitable for forced exercise training and muscle fatigue studies.” In this
way, the opacity of architectural design contrasts with the visibility necessary for design
and sale of products that populate the lab.
Similar to the invisibility of vivaria, in the case of the slaughterhouse architectural
design obscures human vision, countering what Timothy Pachirat describes as “a space
of exception.” While the obscuring of vision translated to a dearth of designs for vivaria,
projects engaging with animals through food production constituted a significant
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
9
portion of projects. However, while many projects pertain to practices of confined
livestock housing and care, few focus on the design of slaughterhouses and the act of
slaughter itself — perhaps the most notable exception being the work of Temple
Grandin.
Figure 5. Slaughterhouse Gangway (Temple Grandin)
Among all the livestock design projects, both speculative and applicable (at least
conceptually), one can make a broad differentiation between techno-visionary projects
and those that seek a more pastoral, locavore sensibility. Fabricated farm projects in the
survey that retain more of a back-to-the-land, urban homesteading orientation included
Mike Meiré’s “Farm Project,” presented at Design Miami in 2008, 70F’s “Petting Farm”
in Almere, Netherlands, and a host of objects for urban homesteading fabricated by
New Orleans based CrookedWorks.
Figure 6. “Farm Project” (Mike Meire)
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
10
Examples of the former include theoretical projects such as the MVRDV “Pig City”
project, a conceptual design to produce enough pork to satisfy the Dutch Market as
efficiently as possible. The project is at once grotesque and also an effective critique of
meat consumption and national sustainability politics.
Figure 7. “Pig City” (MVRDV)
A more recent speculative project, “Farmland World” by Chicago-based Design With
Company, presents a techno-futuristic urban pastoral reminiscent of Andrea Branzi’s
“Agronica,” a project that landscape theorist Charles Waldheim references to argue that
the contemporary convergence of design and agriculture is a result of increasing
environmental literacy amongst designers.
Figure 8. “Farmland World” (Design With Company)
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
11
Waldheim suggests that this interest encompasses the production and distribution of
food in a globalized world, as well as the benefits of pre-industrial farming techniques
such as biodiversity and ecological sustainability. More broadly, Waldheim promotes
the discipline of landscape urbanism as a means to apply lessons from ecology
informed by complex systems theory as a departure point, with landscape emerging as
a preeminent medium for design. In this way, many of the animal-design projects in
this study bear this influence beyond the scope of agriculture.
Encountering Animals in the Designed Landscape. While Frederick Law Olmsted
deployed grazing livestock in projects like New York City’s Central Park as part of the
pastoral ambiance of the landscape garden movement, an “ecological turn” in the mid-
1970s repositioned nonhuman animals in the landscape from a perspective informed by
endangered-species legislation and biodiversity-driven conservation biology. Within
North-American landscape and environmental design culture, these strategies are often
associated with the use of the “overlay technique” and ecological assessment surveys in
the design and planning process that reconfigure landscape as habitat. As outlined in
their 1998 Animal Geographies, Wolch and Emel observe that the contemporary
“greening” of architecture and design has occurred in tandem with the maturation of
urban ecological science to incorporate human-impacted urban ecosystems, while
emergent late-20th century urban morphologies seem to allow more and more large
fauna to come into close contact with humans. Many of the projects highlighted below
function to smooth out these points of contact within the urban fabric.
These larger scale projects are often calibrated around a metric of biodiversity, or with
the goal of protecting or recreating habitat connectivity for large keystone predators.
Derived from principles of applied conservation biology and restoration ecology
practice, examples of these large-scale plans include the Florida Wildlife Conservation
Corridor, the Dutch National Ecological Network, and the proposed Yellowstone-to-
Yukon Wildlife Corridor. Within these larger regional plans are landscape-scale design
interventions, such as wildlife crossings and habitat restoration. While designers are
largely absent from the Florida plan, several high profile Dutch design firms have built
wildlife overpasses in the Netherlands, and the ARC Wildlife Overpass in Vail,
Colorado was the product of a large international competition, won by Michael Van
Valkenburg Associates “Hypar-nature” proposal.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
12
Figure 9. “Hypar-nature” (MVVA)
Other landscape plans and designs not necessarily part of a larger regional connectivity
scheme may nevertheless include habitat restoration for specific species as a key part of
the design. With complexity theory shifting focus from a balance of nature to
optimizing energetic flows through a system, lines between habitat restoration and
agriculture can blur. SCAPE Landscape Architecture’s entry into MOMA’s Rising
Currents exhibition consisted of a series of oyster beds to detoxify seawater and mitigate
rising sea levels associated with climate change.
Figure 10. “Oystertechture” (SCAPE)
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
13
In addition to SCAPE’s multi-functional infrastructure project, Hung’s honorable
mention “Urban Transhumance” in the 2012 Animal Architecture Awards is another
notable food-producing landscape-scale project.
Figure 11. “Urban Transhumance” (Kyunglin Hong)
One notable difference between these and restoration ecology projects driven by
conservation biology is the de-centering of a native species and biodiversity metrics in
favor of metabolic performance.
While not on the landscape scale, among the most practical developments in smoothing
out animal encounters with the infrastructures of urban development may be mitigating
bird-kill collisions that come with steel-frame glass-curtain wall construction (Klem).
Architect Jeanie Gang has been especially prolific at designing bird-friendly high rises,
such as her “Aquatower” in Chicago.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
14
Figure 12. “Aquatower” (Studio Gang)
Similar tactics are employed at her Ford Calumet Environmental Center on Chicago’s
de-industrializing south side. However, what is perhaps most notable about the
Environmental Center is its function. Between designs that preserve biodiversity,
maintain ecosystem services, and produce food on the regional or landscape scale, are
numerous designs for facilities such as the Calumet Environmental Center, which
enable people to watch or otherwise safely encounter urban wildlife.
Figure 13. Lake Calumet Environmental Center (Studio Gang)
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
15
These projects tend to oscillate between those that seek to reconfigure or reimagine
entire landscapes, versus those that deploy positioning devices or architectonic
interventions such as a variety of prompts, signs, viewing platforms and other tactics to
design the experience of an existing landscape. The notion of seeing animals in the wild
also extends underwater in Promontorio Architecture’s More River Aquarium in
Portugal, as well as Jeanne Gang’s plans to reconfigure the Baltimore Aquarium as
something more akin to a sanctuary.
Figure 14. Mora River Aquarium (Promontorio Architecture)
In one sense, wildlife-observation structures may be seen as somewhat analogous to the
decorative birdhouse. Adhering to a sort of naturalist-relational aesthetics, many tend
to operate within the modernist metaphor of alienation from nature, ignoring the
constant interspecies becoming that is part of being human, and fixating on an
encounter with a charismatic animal other or “native species” as a stand-in for broader
more-than-human ontology. These projects are often accompanied by ecologically
informed theoretical mission statements about facilitating cross-species care, though
many are more sculptural and gestural than practical. Projects fabricated for design
biennales and exhibitions can make the goal of “creating habitat” for urban wildlife
seem dubious. Naturalist-relational aesthetics often entails the use of scientific
language, such as “native species,” as part of the aesthetic form, or the boast of
collaboration “in dialog” with wildlife experts. However, in the worst cases adopting
the language and prerogatives of conservation biology can further obscure the
production of scientific knowledge as an apolitical “black box.” This is especially
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
16
evident in projects that fixate on the idea of native species, which some consider a
racialized historical concept of questionable practical utility.
However, it is worth taking seriously the means through which we watch and
encounter other animals. Just as in the case of vivaria and the slaughterhouse, design as
an aesthetic or sensory practice directly engages with the politics of visibility. From this
frame, rather than decorative symbolic objects, an example of interesting wildlife
housing and designs for encountering animals is Austin’s bat bridge. The world’s
largest urban bat colony, with 1.5 million roosting bats, is tucked under the Congress
Avenue Bridge in downtown Austin, Texas. Each night they eat from 10,000 to 20,000
pounds of insects. The evening bat flights have become a major tourist draw, with an
estimated 100,000 people visiting the adjacent Statesman Bat Observation Center to
observe the bats (www.batcon.org). Here, it is not presumed that the bats need housing
constructed for them (they found the bridge). Rather, the invasive bats, minding their
own business, are re-branded and designed as a site of interest and a source of local
identity, rather than a pest to be exterminated.
Of course, when it comes to watching animals the preeminent architectural types are
the zoo and the aquarium. Within the domains of architecture and design, zoos may be
the typology with the most established body of critical and historical literature. Animal
historians have written extensively on 19th-century zoos, menageries, and stables, as
part of imperial nation-building, modernization, and urban development (Ritvo;
Anderson), while others have focused on the zoo as a philosophical project (Acampora).
Jeffrey Hyson has written specifically on this history of zoo design in America. Some
spaces, such as elements of the London Zoo, are part of broader design histories
(Anker), while Cedric Price’s work in the London zoo has been the focus of Hadas
Steiner.
Our research yielded many built zoos, as well as speculative ones. Of particular note are
the plans for BIG Architect’s “Zootopia,” which is under construction in Denmark. The
diagrammatic visuals and unrelenting iconoclasm for “Zootopia” are classic BIG, and
what is notable is the utopian language that attempts to rework the zoo as a landscape
experience.
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
17
Figures 15 & 16. Givskund Zoo (BIG)
However, despite the requisite iconoclastic hype that comes with BIG’s branding, much
of what they propose, conceptually, are standard protocols for zoo design, and already
in play at the Givskud Zoo, with its “Safari” layout. These tactics were pioneered by
mid-century Swiss ethologist and de facto zoo designer Heini Hediger’s work on social,
critical, and flight distance in getting animals to reproduce and live full lives in
captivity. These strategies have had a lasting impact on architecture and environmental
design that is still felt today, as space is increasingly designed to produce value through
predetermined cognitive outcomes in domains such as shopping and user interface or
experience design (Pine and Gilmore; Underhill). Surely, BIG is accelerating these
techniques in innovative ways, but most pertinent to BIG’s design for the sake of our
discussion is the dynamics at play in the Givskund Zoo, the sort of ethological
perspective whose form is produced by expressions of movements, sensations, and
environmental flows that constitute the animal body.
Operationalizing Umwelt: Animal Skeuomorphs. This ethological perspective on the
animal has roots in proto-ecologist Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt Theorie and the
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
18
subsequent field of bio- or eco-semiotics. For Uexküll and his followers, Umwelt
describes a species or organism-specific model of the world, corresponding to a given
creature’s sensorium. This understanding has been adapted in ecology as the idea of
“continua” in conservation practice. Here, landscape connectivity is seen from an
“umwelt” perspective based on species-specific affordances, rather than simply in terms
of habitat restoration based on a remotely sensed “view from above,” as in post-war
landscape ecology (Manning and Lindenmayer). This perspective leads us to a final
category of design for animals that is less of a scalar or programmatic typology than
design tactics or a mode of design production. In each of these projects, designs harness
nonhuman animal bodies, abilities, or behavioral tendencies in an Uxeküllian semiotic
Functionskries, or “functional circle” between organism and environment.
These designs cast animals in performative roles through engaging with an animal’s
perceptual capabilities. First, a suite of designed objects aestheticize engagement and
interaction with urban wildlife in ways other than housing. These projects operate on
the level of specific interactions rather than the broader, coarse grain of principles for
architectural or landscape best practices. Natalie Jeremijenko and Chris Woebken, both
as collaborators and independently, have produced a wide variety of transspecies work
that fits this category. Most famous perhaps is their “Amphibious Architecture” project,
which attempts to enable fishes in New York’s East River to communicate with humans
ashore.
Figure 17. “Amphibious Architecture” (Natalie Jeremijenko & Chris Woebken)
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
19
Their designs for a “Bat Billboard,” as well as Anne Galloway’s “Counting Sheep,”
propose a similar broadcasting of information from nonhuman-to-human, via digital
sensors. While not involving animals per se, Chris Woebken’s “Animal Superpowers”
design, as well as Simone Farrecina’s 2011 Animal Architecture Awards Winning
“Theriomorphous Cyborg,” both draw on the resurgence of Uexküll’s work in
prompting humans to speculate on the other worlds sensed by nonhuman animals.
However, as “critical design” or “design art,” many of these designs operate in a sphere
closer to art practice, where material functionality is less clearly articulated. Clearly, the
prefix critical pertains to the way these designs are meant to provoke, bringing the issue
of functionality into question in a way that sets them apart from our focus on
architecture and landscape designs.
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to enter a debate around the functionality or
performative capacities of critique, it is worth noting how projects that attempt to
extract information from the animal Umwelt for aesthetic consideration by humans are
distinct from a class of designs that harness these modes of perception as a means of
production. Here, we propose the use of the concept of the animal skeuomorph to
describe the design elements at play. This concept originates in archeology to describe
representations of non-functional elements derived from functional elements of a
previous design iteration; one classic example of a skeuomorph being etchings on a clay
pot that refer to a woven basket. Steve Jobs and Apple brought the skeuomorph concept
to prominence in user interface design (UIX) with a famous example being digital
representations of analog clocks. In this context of UIX, skeuomorphs accelerate human
comprehension of new designs. In the case of non-human animals, we use the term to
describe the mobilization of animal perception and behavior to produce results desired
by human designers.
A prime example of this is the MIT Media Lab’s Mediated Matter Research Group’s
recent 2013 “Silk Pavilion.” One of five non-bee arthropod projects, a robotic arm
creates a lattice by weaving a thread around a geodesic dome framing structure. Silk
worms are then placed on the thread to complete the fabrication of the dome, as they
produce silk fibers along the thread as part of their life cycle. The result, unbeknownst
to the worms, is an ethereal, silk cover for the dome.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
20
Figure 18. “Silk Pavilion” (MIT Mediated Matter Group)
Heralded by Geoff Manaugh of BLDBLG as “Animal Printheads,” the dome is still
somewhat of a conceptual aesthetic practice (the dome is displayed in a lobby at MIT)
rather than an actual building technique, but its value is located in material production,
not (only) critique.
While such techniques may be considered novel in their relation to emergent
technologies and scientific knowledge, Calhoun reminds us that technology often
serves simply to allow us to do things we already do a bit more easily. In this sense,
these animal-informatic designs represent an end point of a much longer history of
human-animal relations defined by tracking and following other animals. Strapping
cameras onto pigeons or translating fish or bat behavior into text messages are in some
ways fundamentally analogous to the early hominid strategies of reading the behavior
of other animals in the landscape to aid in the search of water or food. As this
eventually developed into the human “art of tracking” (Liebenberg), Sanford Kwinter
describes these increasingly sophisticated tactics of reading signs of other organisms in
the landscape, accompanied by encephalation, as the origins of a science of the
environment from which architects and designers continue to draw. From this
perspective, we can begin to see technology as bound-up in evolutionary processes as
suggested by paleontologist Andrei Leroi-Gourhan.
Conclusion. Critical or functional, technologically sophisticated or traditional, humans’
designs for other animals instrumentalize nonhumans by appealing to specific aspects
of their physiological capacities, some in more productive ways than others. In addition
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
21
to isolating these sign relations and describing them in semiotic or Uexküllian fashion,
we can also analyze the economy of these projects, considering the politics of animal
participation and the ways animals are cast as unwilling, and perhaps unaware, labor.
From one perspective, because designs are for human purposes, we can only assume
ends are calibrated to human values and politics. What qualifies as a “good,”
“interesting,” or “innovative” design that capitalizes on the physical exertion of
animals? In this light, the most successful animal designers are those that acknowledge
the lives of the common and quotidian animals in our midst, and integrate animal
subjectivity into contemporary practices, while also executing a novel technical
outcome. A prime example might include Jeanne Gang’s integration of bird friendly
building skin technology as one of many innovative features in her “Aquatower.”
Reviewing these designs for nonhumans yields insights into human politics and the
power of design therein. Using the example of BIG’s Givskund Zoo and their move
away from the caged animal, design begins to fade into the background, while subtly
managing animal affect and behavior towards specific, functional outcomes. Such an
invisible zoo seems to come full circle to urban wildlife projects discussed earlier, where
the planetary scale of urbanization transforms the globe into a managed sphere, and
wildlife migration routes are subject to design. If the modern slaughterhouse
corresponds to industrial modes of accumulation and labor relations characterized by
the discipline of the factory floor and the jail cell, the most sophisticated contemporary
designs for animals tend to operate in the register of Umwelt, or a functional
combination of perception and affect reflected in emerging technologies of wildlife
reintroduction, the skeuomorphic MIT silkworm pavilion, or distilled into market
driven bio-info-cogno-technologies. To a more extreme extent, one can see this logic at
play in bio-engineering projects of Terraform 1, such as their living “In-vitro Meat
Habitat” concept.
Figure 19. “In Vitro Meat Habitat” (Terraform 1)
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
22
In this way, thinking about the regimes of control and productive capacities of animals
in contemporary design may find fruitful insights from feminist notions of affective
labor and autonomist Marxist theory deployed to understands the dynamics of the
attention economy and the “new spirit of capitalism,” where creativity (or creation)
becomes a functional outcome of design (Boltanski and Chiapello; Lordon). In this
regard, a study of animals in design suggests designers ought to treat their subjects
with compassion, as their worlds are also subject to management through design.
Moreover, as the world becomes increasingly designed, some argue the capacity for
alternative and unforeseen uses diminishes as technology specifies pre-determined
outcomes (Redström). The fact that we are living through the sixth great extinction in
the earth’s history attests to this dynamic, as well as the proliferation of design. When
creativity and creation become specified by design, thinking about the way we design
for other animals reveals the interplay between biological and technological evolution
more broadly. In this regard, we might think carefully about who receives design
attention, how much, and for what ends.
Note. Using the internal search feature on each blog powered by Google should also be
considered in relation to the “politics of the search” outlined by Rogers (2009) and
others. While beyond the scope of this discussion, the politics of the search is directly
related to the engineering of affect in which design practice is implicated.
Works Cited
Acampora, Ralph R. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lexington
Books, 2010.
Anderson, Kay. “Animal Domestication in Geographic Perspective.” Society & Animals
6.2 (1998): 119–35.
Anker, Peder. “Science in Culture: Bauhaus at the Zoo.” Nature 439.7079 (2006): 916–916.
Barad, Karen. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter
Comes to Matter.” Signs 40.1 (2014): 801-31.
Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch, and Deborah G. Douglas. The Social
Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of
Technology. MIT press, 2012.
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
23
Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. “The New Spirit of Capitalism.” International Journal
of Politics, Culture, and Society 18.3–4 (2005): 161–88.
Borch, Christian, Gernot Böhme, Olafur Eliasson, and Juhani Pallasmaa. Architectural
Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture. Walter de Gruyter, 2014.
Calhoun, Craig. “Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications
Technology and the Transformation of the Urban Public Sphere.” Sociological Inquiry
68.3 (1998): 373–97.
Coles, Alex. Design and Art. MIT Press, 2008
DiSalvo, Carl, and Jonathan Lukens. “Nonanthropocentrism and the Nonhuman in
Design: Possibilities for Designing New Forms of Engagement with and through
Technology.” From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen. Eds. Marcus Foth, Laura Forlano,
Christine Satchell, and Martin Gibbs. MIT, 2012. 421-435.
Flusser, Vilem, and John Cullars. “On the Word Design: An Etymological Essay.”
Design Issues 11.3 (Autumn 1995): 50–53.
Fuller, Matthew. “Art for Animals.” Journal of Visual Art Practice 9.1 (January 1, 2010):
17–33.
Gabrys, Jennifer. “Becoming Urban: Sitework from a Moss-Eye View.” Environment and
Planning-Part A 44.12 (2012): 2922-39.
Grandin, Temple with Mark Deesing. Humane Animal Handling: Understanding Animal
Behavior and Building Facilities for Healthier Animals. Storey Publishing, 2008.
Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet. U of Minnesota P, 2008.
Harrington, Lauren A., Axel Moehrenschlager, Merryl Gelling, Rob PD Atkinson,
Joelene Hughes, and David W. Macdonald. “Conflicting and Complementary Ethics of
Animal Welfare Considerations in Reintroductions.” Conservation Biology 27.3 (2013):
486–500.
Hyson, Jeffrey. “Jungles of Eden: The Design of American Zoos.” Environmentalism in
Landscape Architecture. Michel Conan, Ed. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 2000. http://scholarship.sju.edu/hist_fac/1/.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
24
Ingold, Tim. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill.
Psychology Press, 2000.
Julier, Guy. “From Visual Culture to Design Culture.” Design Issues 22.1 (2006): 64–76.
Klem, Daniel Jr. “Collisions between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention
(Colisiones de Pájaros Con Ventanas: Mortalidad Y Prevención).” Journal of Field
Ornithology 61.1 (1990): 120–28.
Kosek, Jake. “Ecologies of Empire: On the New Uses of the Honeybee.” Cultural
Anthropology 25.4 (2010): 650–78.
Kwinter, Sanford. “Combustible Landscape.” Projective Ecologies. Chris Reed & Nina-
Marie Lister, Ed. Actar, 2014. 336-53.
Leroi-Gourhan, Andrei. Gesture and Speech. Trans. A. Bostock Berger. MIT Press, 1993.
Liebenberg, Louis. The Art of Tracking, the Origin of Science. International Publishers
Marketing, Inc., 1990. http://ir.nmu.org.ua/handle/123456789/133244.
Lippit, Akira Mizuta. Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife. U of Minnesota Press,
2000.
Lordon, Frédéric. Willing Slaves of Capital: Spinoza and Marx on Desire. Verso Books, 2014.
Lorimer, Jamie. “Nonhuman Charisma.” Environment and Planning D 25.5 (2007): 911.
Malpass, Matt. “Between Wit and Reason: Defining Associative, Speculative, and
Critical Design in Practice.” Design and Culture 5.3 (2013): 333–56.
Manning, Adrian D., David B. Lindenmayer, and Henry A. Nix. “Continua and
Umwelt: Novel Perspectives on Viewing Landscapes.” Oikos 104. 3 (2004): 621–28.
Markussen, Thomas. “The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design
Between Art and Politics.” Design Issues 29.1 (December 12, 2012): 38–50.
doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00195.
Jennifer Wolch & Marcus Owens -- Animals in Contemporary Architecture and Design
25
Marx, Leo. “‘Technology’: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept.” Social Research 64.3
(Fall 1997): 965–88.
Nast, Heidi J. “Loving…. Whatever: Alienation, Neoliberalism and Pet-Love in the
Twenty-First Century.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 5.2
(2006): 300–327.
National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The National
Academies Press, 2011.
Pachirat, Timothy. Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight.
Yale UP, 2013.
Palmer, Clare. Animal Ethics in Context. Columbia UP, 2010.
Parikka, Jussi. Insect Media: An Archaeology of Animals and Technology. U of Minnesota P,
2010.
Pine, B. Joseph II, and James H. Gilmore. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.”
Harvard Business Review 76 (1998): 97–105.
Preciado, Beatriz. “Architecture as a Practice of Biopolitical Disobedience.” Log 25
(Summer 2012): 121-134.
Redström, Johan. “Towards User Design? On the Shift from Object to User as the
Subject of Design.” Design Studies 27.2 (2006): 123–39.
Ritvo, Harriet. “The Order of Nature: Constructing the Collections of Victorian Zoos.”
New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. R.
J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, Ed. Johns Hopkins UP, 1996. 43–50.
Ross, Toni. “Linkages Between Aesthetic Autonomy And Discipline Hybridity In The
Art Of Andrea Zittel.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 8.1 (2007): 108–24.
Rothfels, Nigel. Representing Animals. Indiana UP, 2002.
Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People.
Cambridge UP, 1995.
Humanimalia: a journal of human/animal interface studies
Volume 8, Number 2 (Spring 2017)
26
Sloterdijk, Peter. “Rules for the Human Zoo: A Response to the Letter on Humanism.”
Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 27.1 (2009): 12-28.
Steiner, Hadas A. “For the Birds.” Grey Room 13 (2003): 5–31.
Thacker, Eugene. Biomedia. U of Minnesota P, 2004.
Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall. The Hidden Life of Dogs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.
Thrift, Nigel. Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. Routledge, 2008.
Tsing, Anna. “Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species.” Environmental
Humanities 1 (2012): 141–54.
Underhill, Paco. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping – Updated and Revised for the
Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond. Simon and Schuster, 2009.
Waldheim, Charles. “Notes toward a History of Agrarian Urbanism.” Design
Observer 11.04.2010.
Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. “Hardware/software/wetware.” Critical Terms for Media
Studies. W.J.T. Mitchell and Mark B.N. Hansen, Ed. U of Chicago P 2010. 186–96.
Wolch, Jennifer R., and Jody Emel. Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the
Nature-Culture Borderlands. Verso, 1998.